Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

ruphus13 writes "Ubuntu and Canonical have been very active at OSCON this year. They showcased a new distro, announced improvements to their code-hosting platform, and made Mark Shuttleworth available for a couple of talks and panel sessions. Quoting: 'Ubuntu Netbook Remix, a complete distribution designed to run on Atom-based Netbook PCs. The main difference that sets it apart from its big brother Hardy Heron is the Ubuntu Mobile Edition (UME) Launcher, a user interface created specifically for use on the teensy screens and keyboards of today's popular ultra-portable computers.' Canonical also announced Version 2.0 of Launchpad, their code-hosting platform. Enhancements include 'a planned API that'll allow third-party applications to authenticate, query and modify data in the massive Launchpad database, without a user needing to manually access the system via a browser.' Mark Shuttleworth went on to state that Linux's market share will grow when it has better eye-candy than Apple's."

Ubuntu (and many other popular distros) have been trying to get there. Last missing part was "Shiny" - Compiz and other similar eye-candies may get them there.

Are you sure that was the last missing part? There's still a problem with getting manufacturers of PC components designed for home use to work wholeheartedly with the Ubuntu community. I don't see penguin logos on boxes, and not everybody has a working printer and enough paper to print out a distribution's hardware compatibility list and carry it into a local computer store.

Are you sure that was the last missing part? There's still a problem with getting manufacturers of PC components designed for home use to work wholeheartedly with the Ubuntu community.

Sure, but 98% of the things I plug into my Linux box work 100% fine and are up fast. The last time I plugged in a simple flash drive into a Vista box, it took at least a minute trying to find the driver and eventually worked. Then there are all kinds of other things that Vista needs a driver for but they work out-of-the-box for Linux. Just about anything except for ATI/nVidia cards with work 100% out-of-the-box.

I don't see penguin logos on boxes, and not everybody has a working printer and enough paper to print out a distribution's hardware compatibility list and carry it into a local computer store.

But with Ubuntu you don't need that just about everything will work without any configuration. And the things that don't either are A) specialty devices that most of the time the programs for using them are Windows-only or B) Major computer components that are mostly built-in when you buy a computer (Wi-Fi cards, Graphics cards, Sound cards, etc.). But as for buying just about anything you can be 99% sure it will work on the newest Ubuntu, and if not, than download the alpha/beta of the next one and most of the time it will work.

But with Ubuntu you don't need that just about everything will work without any configuration.

You're right to some degree there, however the parent's point about penguins on the boxes is a huge problem. For Linux to be "easy", it has to have hardware which tells consumers that it's Linux-compatible. But the thing in the way of solving that is Tux's catch22: "Linux won't get support until it gets widely used, but it won't see wide use until it gets support." The problem is being solved, it's just sl

You're right to some degree there, however the parent's point about penguins on the boxes is a huge problem. For Linux to be "easy", it has to have hardware which tells consumers that it's Linux-compatible.

Because most of the people read the boxes for Windows support? Not anymore. It has been accepted that, whether there is a nice Windows logo on there or not, it will work with Windows unless it says "For Mac" or is made by Apple. Linux will be the same, no need for fancy logos, etc. Though I do try to buy things that have Linux on the system requirements (such as flash drives, all will work with Linux I know, but I would rather buy the one that specifically mentions it, vote with your wallet)

But the thing in the way of solving that is Tux's catch22: "Linux won't get support until it gets widely used, but it won't see wide use until it gets support." The problem is being solved, it's just slow. Even the supposed thing with ATI/AMD releasing their new graphics cards, the Radeon HD 48x0's, that would have Tux on the box never happened. Disappointing. However, since driver installation is still insane on Linux, it's not too surprising that manufacturers don't support it better. If they had a kernel module or API which OEMs could use for quick driver installation so you wouldn't have to compile or reinstall your driver for every kernel upgrade you went through, and could also provide an install package that could register itself with the most common package managers out there by using a universally accepted packaging API, then I think you'll start seeing that happening more.

But the thing is, if they would just release the specs for the hardware, even under a NDA, someone could write a kernel driver for it, include it with the main kernel and all would be good. And there are a lot of people that are willing to do it. And I honestly don't want to do what I have to do with Windows and that is install some driver, which installs some proprietary application to do something that should be done with a generic driver for things such as printers, USB drives, etc. And it is really bad if you lose the CD that comes with it and then have unusable hardware... So, in the way, free reversed engineered drivers are slow, but they are better than the super-proprietary, niche drivers that the manufacturers want to give us for No-Good-Reason (TM).

Anything that helps adoption by helping easy installation is a good thing, and will increase Linux's adoption, and that's all I want to see happen. Users still will have the choice to use binary blobs or not, but they will have a lot more choices when Linux adoption becomes greater.)

Linux does not need an easy install to be used. If you have *ever* had to reinstall XP, it is a headache, compare that to Ubuntu's install. Ubuntu generally gives you good defaults with few hard choices rather than Window's installer (like how is a novice user supposed to know which to format the disks as, FAT or NTFS?). DOS wasn't good. But it was pre-installed so that's what everyone used. Windows wasn't great either, but it was the only thing you could get for a long time. When/if Dell starts actually promoting the systems they have with Ubuntu on them, I expect the marketshare to rise. Seriously, Dell and the OSS community would have a lot to gain if Dell didn't hide the Ubuntu systems in a dark corner of their website.

Or even so, with various distros of Windows. But atleast you have a choice to choose. The difference that remains between the Microsoft Windows Family (distros) and Linux Distros is that, with Linux the support will be shared among distros. Windows It will not.

As for Apple/Macs, you don't have that freedom to choose your hardware, thats why people are mislead to think, "it works." Blue pill is comfortable.

OT post here, but I was really disappointed at the quality of Compiz in Kubuntu 8.04. After having seen Beryl with 7.04, I had expected that merging Beryl back into Compiz would produce the best of both worlds. Instead, the result was a klunky effect that looked like someone's homework done only to meet minimum requirements.

For example, the desktop cube is still there with Compiz-fusion, but unlike Beryl, it doesn't have that "springy" feel when I ro

I have people telling me they want Apple computers, and they have never seen the UI of OS X.

They want Apple computers because of marketing and hype. They are becoming trendy status symbols. (Put the flame-throwers away, I'm not commenting on quality here). Linux doesn't have a marketing department. That is why Linux won't take a sizable chunk out of the desktop market.

People draw comparisons to Firefox and its adoption, but Firefox grew when it adopted a marketing campaign. People seem to forget that.

They want Apple computers because of marketing and hype. They are becoming trendy status symbols. (Put the flame-throwers away, I'm not commenting on quality here). Linux doesn't have a marketing department.

[No flames from me.] They want Macs because of the marketing and hype combined with geeks like me who say "If you've got the money and you don't want any problems, you should get a Mac." That's quite the combination.

Ubuntu has a marketing department. Ubuntu is also very good. But you still cannot just to

I think the "problem" is a bit deeper than most people will care to admit. Apple is a common word and the name of a computer company with 30+ years of history behind it. Mention ipod or iphone and even non-techies can identify the company behind it.

Ubuntu sounds multicultural and foreign. No offense, but most people will readily identify Apple and remain cautious about Ubuntu. That may not be what anyone here wants to read, but I don't think the Free Software desktop can go head-on with Apple with the Ubuntu name leading the way and expect the Free Software desktop to be anything but roadkill in Apple's wake, no matter how shiny it is.

The grandparent has swerved into the truth, Apple is an exclusive brand that is hot now and has been hot for several years. Likewise, Linux and F/OSS is its own exclusive brand that appeals to a different group of people. I don't fault Mr. Shuttleworth for trying to improve the Free Desktop as I think it's a worthy goal. I just think it's a fool's game to try to out-Apple Apple.

Agreed. And, it never will be. Mark Shuttleworth is way off base this time. Apple specializes in what's possible when a single company controls every aspect of your computer, from hardware design to the GUI. Linux specializes in what's possible when hackers around the world make cool stuff. I'm waaaay in the Linux camp, but Ubuntu will never replace Apple.

All that really matters is that Linux is awesome and getting better every day. We, the few Linux hackers, have it really good. Why should we care that Joe Sixpack will continue to watch his porn and play his video games on Windows until the end of time?

"Ubuntu" is a very unfortunate name. It helps promote the distro with the hacker community (as did the soft-porn desktop art), but it's a disaster for business applications. I've promoted Ubuntu for business use over Red Hat now for years (I got really tired of Red Hat putting out unstable Fedora releases and charging for stable but backwards Enterprise crap). The #1 problem I always run into when I say "Try Ubuntu" is the natural question:

I could contend a number of distros hold advantages over Ubuntu, but I don't see the need to start a flame-war.

However, I saw a Google-trends breakdown recently (I think it was on planetsuse.org) that showed searches for Ubuntu constantly rise, where as searches for Linux are on the decline. Those two points almost meet in the middle.

Ubuntu is becoming ubiquitous for Linux. People have heard of Ubuntu, and word of mouth is extremely popular. Because it is the most popular distro, that continues to spread

First I just have to say, awesome journal. Thank you so much for promoting cross-anything usability. In order for everyone to have access to all software, having that software use modular/extensible APIs/ABIs so that they can always function in the best way in any environment is very important. The Freedesktop project is very important in helping to bring more interoperability to the Linux system, so I wish them all luck in this struggle. It'll be amazing when a way can be found to make any program have the look and feel of the native desktop or whatever user-defined look that they want, and when configuration files and data can all be stored in similar locations, like just off the user's home directory, instead of being buried inside.kde or.gnome. Heck, I'll be happy when my KDE program menu icons start displaying correctly in Gnome.

While it's fine and great that Ubuntu has become a noticed distro, I'll be happier when "Linux" becomes more common. When you can download virtually any distro and it will simply be a specific selection of Linux software, but you can go out and easily download and install any Linux software or drivers you want. Then, it won't need to be "Ubuntu", it will just need to be "made for Linux". Some distros may not be concerned with cross-distro software portability because they have an interest in users coming to them for help, instead of to the actual upstream providers of the software, since some of these distros are based on wanting to create a need for support. However, just like not having desktop standards hurts everyone, not having easy cross-distro software installation does the same. Fortunately, there are projects like the Burgdorf Packaging API [linuxfoundation.org] which are working on solving this issue, as well as more top-level solutions like Zero Install [0install.net], and of course both of these projects could use more support from everyone.:)

People draw comparisons to Firefox and its adoption, but Firefox grew when it adopted a marketing campaign. People seem to forget that.

Linux doesn't, but Ubuntu does. But it's also important that Apple also delivers, even if you subtract some for obvious hype and willingness to overlook Apple tend to deliver products that work well. I've seen several that could give Apple a run for the money on style, but then they tend to fail on other points. And the far more useful, yet ugly products. Honestly, there's not that many running in the "fashionable yet usable" category.

Think for example of clothes - you can get very stylish clothes but they're often awkward to wear, horrible to wash and neither robust nor very practical. Or you can have clothes that are very practical, comfortable, durable, easy to wash and utterly unstylish. Want to look classy 365 days a year? There's not actually that many you'd want to wear. What I'm saying it that you better be good to be fashionable, for a durable product at least.

I don't think Linux is good enough to be fashionable just yet. Yes, it's a good workhorse but a workhorse is no show horse. The most important thing Linux could do right now is to let Macs have their day to break the MS dominance and get as many cross-platform (Win/Mac/Linux) standards in place as at all possible. Oh yeah and RMS/hippies moving to servers/techies aren't exactly a great start for a fashion statement.

If I wanted to try a fashion image, I'd try the "choice" image. Show different people, one working in a terminal, one working in KDE, one working in Gnome, working in different applications etc. which all say "I use Linux" and then go "What do you want Linux to be for you?". Would have an ounce of truth yet the implied lie that Linux can be everything you want it to be, sounds like a good commercial to me.

I just bought a macbook pro and immediately dual booted it with Ubuntu because OSX can't do what I want it to do, but with a bit of configuration Ubuntu can look as flashy as OSX yet still give me what I want.

Spaces can do a lot, but it isn't as flexible as compiz-fusion. Finder just plain doesn't support sftp, and OSX apps don't either, not in the sense that gnome/kde apps do.

As is I get the usability of OSX with the technical advancement that only gnome and kde hav

You're forgetting one key thing, Apple is Apple whereas there are lots of companies that are "Linux". When someone sees an ad for RedHat or Ubuntu, they are seeing an add for that particular company as well as an ad for "Linux". But then they see an ad for a diff company and the waters get muddied a little. When I turn on the tv and see the Mac and PC guys, I know who they are. I know there is one Mac and one PC (well, it's actually Windows and there is more than one... XP, Vista, etc., but you get my point

but Firefox grew when it adopted a marketing campaign. People seem to forget that.

Ummm... What marketing campaign? Most people either used Firefox because either A) It was preinstalled on the computer they have (by a geek, or by work, etc) B) They didn't want IE C) Some guy who they thought knew a lot about computers told them to D) A guy on some forum is always raving about how great Firefox is.

I don't know of a single person who has installed Firefox because of the marketing campaign it has. Sure, it is great and I wish that more OSS projects had it, but as for it really giving r

Right now Apple is the only company that makes the "whole stack" the computer, the OS, the applications and now even the retail store.

This means Apple gets ALL the money. But also means that Apple can test everything and see that it works together and does not need to waste time and money supporting every possible combination of components.

It's more than just marking Apple has a unique product. No one else sell you a system that thy built top to bottom. Well OK Sun can but they don't go after home users.

the major GNU/Linux distros (and BSD too) are getting there, but some parts still too esoteric for Aunt Minnie or Grandma.

Really, other than the install process (which, honestly the install for Windows is a lot more difficult, but it is usually pre-installed), Ubuntu is just about easy enough for anyone to use with little to no problems.

Half the "problem" is teaching people that Linux != Windows. And that is the major reason why OS X can get away with not being Windows. When you buy a Mac, you don't buy a computer, you buy a Mac. When you use Linux, you still have your hardware that ran Windows, it doesn't look any diffe

In my experience it's people who aren't computer savvy that find switching easier, even preferable. Once people have started to equate 'knowing Windows' with 'knowing computers' then they tend to come to the conclusion that Linux is hard to use.

To a point, the more you know about a subject the harder it is to admit that you don't know something new about that subject. (The second of the three steps to enlightenment.)

A Friend of mine recently tried Ubuntu Hardy. He wasn't too fond of Vista, and couldn't get his hands on a copy of XP. He's quite familiar with computers, but I would not describe him as technically minded. Expecting a short and brutal install process followed by a hasty retreat back to Windows, I was frankly blown away by what followed.

Firstly, he installed it, via the Windows installer, without undue hassle and was initially very impressed. He ended up having problems with wireless network card drivers, but before then he discovered the compiz window/eye-candy manager and the whole cube desktop thing, as well as dual monitor and window tiling features. He even ended up compiling an add on for compiz from source, and this someone who to my knowledge has never even written a Hello World program (though he has edited game ini files and the like).

He has seen Macs, and though he's impressed, the price is off putting. Anyway he is now using Vista, and has found its visual effects fairly pleasing. But, he still wants to go back to Ubuntu, due in no small part to the compiz cube, which he considers superior. In fact, even his girlfriend actually prefers Ubuntu. This last remark, while somewhat sexist, is in this particular case a justified testament to the wide appeal of Hardy.

In short, I remain shocked, bewildered and pleasantly bemused by this state of affairs. Desktop Linux is here right now. No actually, it's over here [ubuntu.com]. It is not an exaggeration to state that Aunt Tillie can use and actually enjoy Ubuntu Hardy, as though as it might be for us to accept it.

I personally thought that with Microsoft's Vista difficulties, Apple and OSX would be in the ascendant. Right now however, I foresee the migration of a sizeable fraction of home desktop users to Ubuntu in the short term. You would be surprised just how fast Ubuntu can spread once people see those wobbling windows and desktop cubes.

Remember how you though that Bittorrent would be too complicated from the average desktop user? Yeah.

As an alternative experience, I tried to install Ubuntu the other night and got as far as partitioning. Turns out it doesn't see "fakeraid" partitions. I was lucky I knew a little about my partitions etc or I might have tried to continue the install, which I'm sure would have completely wiped my Windows partition. Anyway, I did a little research, got a little drunk, got to this page [ubuntu.com] and gave up. I'll give it another go when I've got a bit of time on my hands.

I would have to completely disagree. Right after my son's 2nd birthday, I was in one of these kinds of discussions, and decided to do a little experiment. So, I formatted my son's hard drive, gave him an Ubuntu 5.10 (Breezy Badger) disk, and told him to go install his computer. He did it with no problems. Now if a two year old who cannot read yet can install the OS, I think that it is unfair to say that it is not properly ready for the masses.

As an aside, I followed up with having him try to install WindowsXP. He was unsuccessful. I attribute this to the fact that WindowsXP required reading to get through the install.

Compiz and KDE 4 (If they ever get KDE 4 to work right) will definitely start to draw people to Ubuntu.

Yes on Compiz, no on KDE 4. Even being used to KDE, GNOME and every other DE available for *Nix, KDE 4 just feels... Odd. Sure it may be better than KDE 3 or GNOME, but to a Windows user, KDE 4 along with looking like Vista (big mistake right there), doesn't have the same look and feel as Windows or GNOME. I think that GNOME with Compiz will attract people, but KDE 4 just won't work for Windows refugees. (And, no I don't mean this as a KDE flame, I like how KDE 4 is new and different, but, to attract peop

Wake me up when I can actually install it on my HP laptop and have the drivers actually work. I'm pretty disillusioned with Hardy Heron on this one. Ubuntu's supporters have got as bad as Microsoft's "Just wait until the next version, then it'll work..."

As much as I love ubuntu, I have to agree with you. The 8.04 just wasn't "done" when it was released. Although I didn't have any driver problems, Pulseaudio has caused nothing but headaches for people, and their including a beta release of a browser (firefox 3) in a LTS OS is a strange thing. I've read the arguments for and against that one, but still, if they kept it in beta a few weeks till firefox 3 was released, they could have fixed lots of other issues as well. Its opensource, its not like there are huge marketing campains with millions spent on advertising that would be wasted by delaying the release..

The inclusion of a beta in a LTS makes far more sense than including a browser that will soon be outdated and unsupported. Firefox 3 will exit beta long before Ubuntu releases another LTS. Definitely agree with the rest of the comment though, 8.04 could've used some more time.

Same here. I've been using Linux (Debian then Mandrake then Ubuntu) as my main desktop for eight years. I installed 8.04 and *everything* broke. That was enough incentive to switch to OS X - I was struggling without Photoshop and Dreamweaver anyway and the task of getting Ubuntu working again compared to splashing out now I actually have a salary - it just wasn't worth it.

It's probably useful to note that now, whenever you go to download Ubuntu 8.04 from the official site, you're actually downloading the refreshed ISO known as 8.04.1. This ISO has all the updates up to the beginning of July, which means it also has the final release of Firefox 3, a much better working PulseAudio and many other fixes out-of-the-box. From this point of view, the LTS is now much more polished if someone uses the refreshed ISO.

We run ltsp thin terminals at work. Started off with Debian and ltsp 4.2. When 6.06lts (dapper) we switched and enjoyed the ubuntu goodness. (Dual-heads from an agp and a pci video card, thin client attached printers, snazzy desktop, Jammin 125s for the sales floor). It had its flaws (zombie connections being a biggie) but running 10 clients off of a quad p3-700 was super sweet. We waited eagerly for the next LTS release and installed with utmost haste to a quad xeon 900. Slicker interface (check), zo

you think linux not working on a laptop is bad! my 'dads' pc ran and loaded 7.10 fine, no issues. but 8.04 despite upgrading fine SIMPLY WON'T INSTALL.

this on a commodity desktop system with popular motherboard and part sets!

and on my system at home 8.04 ubuntu won't work at all, it hangs on trying to load gnome, i can get gnome to work in fail safe mode, but it wont' do that automatically! i switched to KDE via meta package and Kubuntu ran no issues.

I think the whole 'just use 1 CD' as the installer might be limiting them

I think you can fit a very feature-rich desktop in 700mb. It's not like Windows or Mac OS come with even a tenth of the functionality provided in a standard Ubuntu install. Most certainly, the media size is not the limiting factor in terms of hardware support.

The fact that your dad's PC can't install 8.04 either means it is marginally unstable, or perhaps Ubuntu 8.04 just plain sucks. I'm leaning towards the latter, in the last year or so, they seem to be obsessed with promotion and whiz-bang rather than

Wake me up when you've stopped being dumb enough to by a laptop which isn't supported. Presumably you don't simply run to walmart and buy the cheapest POS laptop you can find? That means you do some research. Since Linux is KNOWN not to support all the latest hardware, especially in laptops, it was pretty dumb to buy a laptop which didn't work, if you intended to install linux.

Yeah, I'm probably going to get modded troll for this, but honestly this i

The point being that this whole conversation is supposed to revolve around "It just works". Personally, I got Hardy Heron working on my HP laptop. I had to do some serious internet searches and play fun games with NDISwrapper and some alpha quality sound system, but I got it working. I also install and configure Linux workstations for a living. If its possible to make something work in Linux, chances are I can make it work. If I handed that CD to my wife, and said, "hey babe, install this and make work

Apple has the die-hard users it does because it functions perfectly for their needs and doesn't make them do any work.

When you don't have to present too many diverse options and functions, it's pretty easy to make the results look sleek. If Apple even tried to provide as much at-a-glance information in their UI that Linux users have gotten used to, they'd have something as messy as the Vista dockwharfpier.

I disagree with you about package management. When I was new to Linux it gave me major headaches, but I like the fact that the package manager makes installing, uninstalling, and updating things easier.

You are right about browsing with flash being hard for novices and I'll also add in that watching dvd's is a PITA for novices as well. Despite what zealots say about how easy it is, I could never picture my mom, dad, or sister figuring out how to get youtube working or figuring out how to watch a DVD. Mayb

There's just one caveat - "it-just-works" required the whole company to take on a single ideology of "there is no step two". Steve Jobs can pull that at his own company. Can Shuttleworth start a similar movement and implement it?

Vista has better "eye candy" than XP, even arguably better than OSX, but many people aren't switching because it's not just about "candy." It's about user experience, in which animation and soothing visuals play only a part. Simplicity is more important than prettiness, and the ability of the user to know somewhat intuitively what a button will do goes a lot farther than 3D visual effects.

I gave gutsy a try (this was before hardy was out), and was able to run compiz at full tilt on my gimpy macbook's gma gpu.

The problems I had with the system in comparison to mac were:

no graphical sudo out of the box

no incorporation of a global menubar in gnome, eating massive amounts of valuable vertical real estate and subjecting you to those annoying "palettes" many websites use to try to prevent you viewing source.

terrible opengl performance. I can run vlc and mplayer using opengl out on osx, try this o

I ran Ubuntu 7.10 on my old Benq A33 (Cel 1.6, 1 GB of RAM, Intel 915 GMA) and it could run Compiz at full fine (OK I concede that it would slowdown a little when I had Totem (video), Firefox and open office write open at the same time, but it would run any two of those apps without a problem). I don't see why you didn't get Sudo popups, I was asked to elevate privileges whenever it was needed (installing updates, changing network settings, etc...) but that may be an oddity with your Mac.

I disagree with that last statement of the article. It's not the eye candy that's the clincher. It's the user-friendliness, tightness and seamlessness of integration, consistency across the interface and hardware compatibility.

That's probably be true for most Slashdot readers. But a lot of regular consumers are won over by slick visuals -- just look at the number of people willing to take a performance hit for the sake of displaying Aero Glass on Vista. Also, Apple's draw isn't only due to smart marketing and a good UI; people marvel at their products in the stores, and new Apple users are always proud to show off how impressive their new device looks (both the hardware and software.) Eye candy is important to a lot of people whe

I dunno, I always found installing programs with apt-get easier than on my wife's Mac. Why is it easier to find the program, drag it to applications, and then drag that link to the menu than just install it with synaptic?

Yes, from a technical standpoint it is better. But tell someone that isn't "technical" how to install an app they need. You either tell them to go to the command prompt, which scares the hell out of them, or you tell them to use a tool like synaptic, that has so many choices and things you can install that it is just plain overwhelming. They want to play movies, they don't want to decide if they want Totem, Gstreamer, VLC, etc...

You make no sense. They would have to chose their player anyway. Synaptic is not harder than google to use just search for video player ans install any of them. How is this any harder than on a Mac? It even downloads it for you.

And i forgot because i do not use it, but in Ubuntu there is an "Install applications" somewhere in the menu which is another front end for apt. Way more simpler than synaptic and way more simpler than anything else i saw on any OS for the non-technical people.

On a 64-bit Hardy boot at the moment that I installed at release. In love with the idea of 64-bit, like three years of support, but besides that, shininess does rank high in why I might switch from several years of Debian testing 32-bit boot even though the parent has its own good qualities.

What I like about Ubuntu is that as a whole, the community takes the biggest problem with a given platform from an end user standpoint, and then provides an open solution that sticks to the common design rules of the software it compliments. The software doesn't stick out, is modular, sticks to standards (or provides a defacto method that tries to emulate already existing standards), and it seems like it could be drop-in software that would work in any distribution.

It's kind of the antithesis of YaST, for example, which seems like you couldn't separate one part from the other, and it also seems like if you use any other tool to mess with the files YaST has touched, then YaST will either have a problem or ignore it and pretend it never existed. (I'm not sure if this has changed, the last time I used SuSE was version 9)

As a user of Ubuntu, it gives me security by making me feel like if the distribution ever became anything users didn't want, they could easily take these parts and fork. Also as a user, it makes me feel like they are trying to develop software that works for the end user primarily and not as a advantage that only this distribution can have to attract users and keep them. One reason why I use OSS is because I don't feel like my data is tied to anything, and I can always use it. Ubuntu makes me feel that way about the software as well. It really is closely rooted to Debian in that way and really I feel it ties Debian together with some sealant in the cracks and some polish as well. Good job everyone and thanks!

Forget the UI, it's usable and that's what matters. What Ubuntu needs now is support from other players in the software market.

Honestly, I'm pretty well convinced at this point that Ubuntu is "ready". I know tons of people that would switch to it if they could. The crux of the problem is that the major applications these people depend on (or at least, are used to using) don't run on it. What Ubuntu needs more than anything is to make deals with the major players in various software markets (graphics, video, gaming, CAD, simulation, RAD languages, etc) to port their applications. I don't know how this could happen, but I'm pretty sure it's necessary for us to see major adoption.

While there obviously are some amazing and great tools that come with Ubuntu, it needs to be possible for someone to use those few applications they need. Companies need to start offering Ubuntu versions of their products. If that happens, it's game, set, match. And I actually think this would be possible: considering how disheartened many people feel about Vista, convincing them to port to another platform in order to reduce their dependency on MS might not be so difficult anymore. People seem to be finally seeing the pattern than dependence on a moving target like Windows can come back to bite them.

I think a few deals in this direction might actually have the potential to push Ubuntu into the mass market.

At least, not in the markets where linux is competing against it. It's ease of use, and the "it-just-works" factor.
This was my experience trying out the live cd of Kbuntu 8.04. Everything worked. Audio, wireless, etc. The KDE 4 UI definately has the wow factor going on, at least for me. I am not an everyday user of Linux, but one of my test boxes has PCLinuxOS installed. I chose it because it worked pretty much out of the box and had a nice UI. Kbuntu 8.04 blows it away. I don't go for the eye candy as I didn't upgrade to XP until I couldn't run IE7 and upgraded from 2000, but I am rather infatuated with the KDE 4 look.

Technically if a user has enabled the D-Bus Compiz plugin any application can connect to the D-Bus desktop-integration system and start telling the eye-candy what to do. Nobody really writes code for that mostly because it doesn't come standard and no fall-back exists when the user doesn't have Compiz installed.

The typical engineering geek response is that it's "shiny," "pretty," and just skin deep. But in reality what it is, is consistency, a carefully considered experience that starts with design first - not colours and gradiants, but design elements and human factors - and fit the features to that. Read some Raskin, for example, to understand.

Until the software developers starts respecting designers and stops being a bunch of alpha monkeys talking about what they decided to code up that day for themselves, Apple will continue to lead in this area. And I'm not even an Apple fanboy, but it is the truth.

I'll not list all the bugs that I've found because I'm tired of it... And yes, there are people that don't have or didn't notice them (yet).
I'm not abandoning this distro because I like its philosophy. I'm willing to continue my little contribution, but with releases like this, it seems more like a UbuVista or BugBuntu and no eye candy will hide it.

When Shuttleworth is saying that Linux Desktop still needs eye-candy polish to compete with Apple, he's probably referring to Ubuntu per se. A properly configured Compiz Fusion and Emerald (with stuff like shadows and plugins like Group and Tab, Expo) coupled with Screenlets and Avant Window Navigator/Kiba-Dock and proper themes looks almost as good as a Mac if not better. Obviously though, all that stuff is not easy to configure for newcomers, so what *Ubuntu* needs to do in terms of eye-candy is to streamline the process of its configuration.

Linux Desktop in general is *not* trailing behind any other OS, and in fact, it may be leading in terms of special effects. Distributions such as Ubuntu just haven't made it accessible to general public yet.

"If not better"!? I'm running my Linux partition right now as opposed to my OS X partition to play Portal, and I have to tell you, once I've configured this thing for a more Mac-like UI (What!? I *like* Cairo-Dock!) it looks much better than the Mac and has better usability. I honestly just keep the OS X partition around for multimedia features (when you need to rip to an iPod, watch DVDs legally or play several bits of audio at once, OSX works best), and might quite gladly migrate to Gentoo Linux with a

The reason that Ubuntu can be popular is not about Ubuntu, it's about Vista.

Microsoft has a fundamental problem since Ballmer is on: Strategy is more important than technology.

Yes, strategy can be a great weapon. Just like medication can heal your disease. But it also can be poisonous if you overdose.

As I knew, the root of Linux is not about defeating other OS. It is about creating a better OS, thereafter, a better world. It is Microsoft's problem to create a better OS. If Microsoft does, Linux can also be improved since there are better designs.

I'm wondering what percentage of Linux users are developers vs people that know nothing about programming. As a programmer I have absolutely no need for any more eye-candy. At most I'll have firefox, an interpreter/compiler, a shell, and a couple editor windows up.

For all the talk about how cool OSX is, I have NEVER heard of a hardcore embedded guy ever using Apple.

Compiz has wobbly windows- i.e. they wiggle a bit when you move a window around. Windows zoom in and out when you open and close them. You can also bend and stretch windows a bit. It's ok, but it's definitely not an incredibly useful feature. It just looks sort of cool.

I played around with some Macs and it's also kind of silly. When you start up some new gadget/widget/(or whatever they call it) there is a ripple effect when the thing starts up. Windows and stuff also zoom in and out when you open and

Human beings as a rule does not need to add debug statements to some kernel. Generally the Ubuntu works for the masses, sometimes some user comes along and needs more than the 99% others. Annoying as it might be, he - or she - is going to have to work a bit harder to get his exact wishes satisfied, that's how life is, if you aren't among the millions of drones, be prepared to work harder.

As a developer myself for OS X and Linux, I still prefer Slackware over anything else distribution-wise. Give 12.1 a try; it's not anymore "behind" than any other distribution, it just doesn't depend on a memory hungry framework that some distributions install (package management, settings management(uggh think openSuse) and it comes with gcc by default. it doesn't depend on offline package management, for someone modified apt-get to work with tgzs (slapt-get and swaret). And yes, you can download the kernel source from the ftp, build it, and install it along with the compiled modules without any struggle over dependencies. It's still "Linux", at least the one you are in search of;).

Also, I want to say that I think Ubuntu can be defined as an OS by itself (that uses the Linux kernel) is if they create a nice X11 interface that defines what Ubuntu is. The main issue between any 2 distributions is that other than the package management and any special apps they include, everything else is the same, and if not there, can be built and added. just for shits and giggles I compiled apt-get, and grabbed a few apps to test out. i also tested out the deb2tgz app that converts it to slackware packages, and I had the default gnome desktop that Ubuntu comes with on a Slackware machine. That's just the easibility of the friendly applications it comes with; if I only want it to look like the default DE that Ubuntu uses, I can put it on anything that runs an X11 server with a decent video card.

Oh well, the reason I am posting these opinions that I have is that I think Ubuntu can really become something other than "another user-friendly Linux distribution" if they design a special DE that truely integrates every piece of code that they run off the GNU based OS that runs off of the Linux kernel. Sort of the same way Apple has OS X running off of and is integrated with the Darwin OS, that runs off of xnu, the mach kernel.